nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: nifi-0.3.0 release
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:45:06 GMT
~Mike Moser “I'm just asking for very public documentation (perhaps on
the Downloads page itself) that 0.2.0-incubating has a known issue
that may cause people to decide to not use it”


Understood and agree.  I’ll update the downloads page to reflect that.


~Joe Skora “I like the idea of a 0.2.1 "hot fix” ...it keeps the
changes in that release focused on the fix minimizing the testing
demands and allowing for quicker deployment.”


Understood.  My thinking on 021 vs 030 was based more on the effort of
the community to put out a release but your and Mike’s perspective
sounds like it is more from the ‘user’.  We have to take a balanced
view but it should always err on the side of the user experience.  In
short, point taken.


Perhaps we should consider it that if we generate a ticket against a
release and call that ticket a blocker then we should consider a
hotfix.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-777


I’ll initiate an 021 release package and send it out for a vote
[caveat being my current Internet situation is quite sketchy].


Thanks

Joe

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> In general, I like the idea of a 0.2.1 "hot fix" for two reasons.  First,
> it keeps the changes in that release focused on the fix minimizing the
> testing demands and allowing for quicker deployment.  Second, it prevents
> the need to rush the next release just to expedite delivery of a fix.
> There are scenarios where a "hot fix" may not be a good idea, but in the
> case of a show stopping issue it minimizes the time that the project can be
> considered to in a broken state.
>
> My 2 cents, YMMV.
>
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Michael Moser <moser.mw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My intent wasn't to debate the Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 scheme that Apache
>> NiFi has adopted.  My question was more on the lines of what to release,
>> and I was suggesting a release for BOTH a 0.2.1 and 0.3.0.  I understand
>> this community has discussed the desired Git workflow in the past.  I can't
>> remember the decision, but if I'm asking for a "hot fix" release from the
>> Git flow perspective and the community decided to not follow that path,
>> then I accept that.
>>
>> I guess I'm just asking for very public documentation (perhaps on the
>> Downloads page itself) that 0.2.0-incubating has a known issue that may
>> cause people to decide to not use it.  It's certainly causing our community
>> to fast track the 0.3.0 release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > I believe that assigns too much meaning to the versions and may not
>> reflect
>> > the versioning model we have.  We have a wiki page that outlines the
>> > version scheme.  The idea here is that the develop branch is essentially
>> > always ready to be released.  We simply set the version of the develop
>> > branch to be based on what the tickets dictate as per our version scheme.
>> >
>> > I do agree for major releases like 1.0.0 we have a need to discuss as a
>> > community how long to support pre 1.0 as well as 1.x.  This is based on
>> our
>> > published versioning model.
>> >
>> > Does this sound reasonable to you?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> > On Jul 22, 2015 10:55 AM, "Michael Moser" <moser.mw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > All,
>> > >
>> > > As a suggestion for the future, at least after NiFi reaches 1.0, I
>> think
>> > a
>> > > bug fix release such as a 0.2.1 would definitely happen in a scenario
>> > like
>> > > this.  Even after 0.3.0 is available for download, if you don't
>> recommend
>> > > that people use 0.2.0 due to major bugs, then you should replace it
>> with
>> > > 0.2.1 on the Downloads page.
>> > >
>> > > -- Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > All,
>> > > >
>> > > > If there are no objections, I am volunteering to take release manager
>> > > > responsibilities for the 0.3.0 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > This process will include releases for three components:
>> > > > * nifi-parent, version 1.0.1
>> > > > * nifi-nar-maven-plugin, version 1.0.2
>> > > > * nifi, version 0.3.0
>> > > >
>> > > > A ticket [1] has been created to track the release process.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-778
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Ryan,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yup, I'll make sure that one is in there.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Does anyone else have any ticket that they want to ensure gets
out
>> > > today?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > -Mark
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ----------------------------------------
>> > > > > > Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:33:14 -0400
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: nifi-0.3.0 release
>> > > > > > From: rhendrickson.work@gmail.com
>> > > > > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Will the Amazon AWS processors fix make this release?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Mark Payne <
>> markap14@hotmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Joe,
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Not a problem. I updated JIRA to show the tickets that
will go
>> > into
>> > > > > 0.3.0.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Thanks
>> > > > > >> -Mark
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> ----------------------------------------
>> > > > > >>> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:10:20 -0400
>> > > > > >>> Subject: Re: nifi-0.3.0 release
>> > > > > >>> From: joe.witt@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Sounds good. Would like to see the items that end
up on the
>> > release
>> > > > > list
>> > > > > >>> in jira.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Also we need to put together good release notes
this time.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Thanks
>> > > > > >>> Joe
>> > > > > >>> On Jul 20, 2015 10:02 AM, "Mark Payne" <markap14@hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> Hello all,
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> We have found an issue that is present in nifi
0.2.0 that
>> > results
>> > > in
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > >>>> accounts not automatically being requested as
they should
>> when a
>> > > new
>> > > > > >> user
>> > > > > >>>> attempts to access an instance of NiFi.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> This is not a security issue but could cause
some headaches
>> for
>> > > > > >> operators
>> > > > > >>>> who are running secure instances of NiFi, especially
new
>> > > instances.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Unless there are any objections, I would like
to go ahead and
>> > > start
>> > > > > >>>> putting together an 0.3.0 release that has this
issue
>> addressed,
>> > > the
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > >>>> Flume Processors, and any other tickets that
are complete and
>> > > ready
>> > > > to
>> > > > > >> go.
>> > > > > >>>> All others will be moved to version 0.4.0.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> In the absence of any objections, we will probably
have a
>> > package
>> > > > > built
>> > > > > >>>> and ready to be voted on today.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Thank you
>> > > > > >>>> -Mark
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message